Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:23

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:23” utilice nuestra app.

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;

23. if thou bring thy gift to the altar ] i. e. thy offering, such as a lamb or a pair of doves.

rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee ] that thy brother hath cause of complaint against thee, just or unjust, if the quarrel is still not made up.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar … – The Pharisees were intent only on the external act in worship. They looked not at all to the internal state of the mind. If a man conformed to the external rites of religion, however much envy, and malice, and secret hatred he might have, they thought he was doing well. Our Saviour taught a different doctrine. It was of more consequence to have the heart right than to perform the outward act. If, therefore, says he, a man has gone so far as to bring his gift to the very altar, and should remember that anyone had anything against him, it was his duty there to leave his offering and go and be reconciled. While a difference of this nature existed, his offering could not be acceptable. He was not to wait until the offended brother should come to him; he was to go and seek him out, and be reconciled. So now the worship of God will not be acceptable, however well performed externally, until we are at peace with those that we have injured. To obey is better than sacrifice, 1Sa 15:22. He that comes to worship his Maker filled with malice, and hatred, and envy, and at war with his brethren, is a hypocritical worshipper, and must meet with Gods displeasure. God is not deceived, and he will not be mocked.

Thy gift – Thy sacrifice. What thou art about to devote to God as an offering.

To the altar – The altar was situated in front of the temple, and was the place on which sacrifices were made. See the notes on plan, Mat 21:12. To bring a gift to the altar was expressive of worshipping God, for this was the way in which he was formerly worshipped.

Thy brother – Any man, especially any fellow-worshipper. Anyone of the same religious society.

Hath aught – Is offended, or thinks he has been injured by you in any manner.

First be reconciled – This means to settle the difficulty; to make proper acknowledgment or satisfaction for the injury. If you have wronged him, make restitution. If you owe him a debt which ought to be paid, pay it. If you have injured his character, confess it and seek pardon. If he is under an erroneous impression, if your conduct has been such as to lead him to suspect that you have injured him, make an explanation. Do all in your power; and all you ought to do, to have the matter settled. From this we learn:

That, in order to worship God acceptably, we must do justice to our fellow-men.
Our worship will not be acceptable unless we do all we can to live peaceably with others.
It is our duty to seek reconciliation with others when we have injured them.
This should be done before we attempt to worship God.
This is often the reason why God does not accept our offerings, and we go empty away from our devotions. We do not do what we ought to others; we cherish improper feelings or refuse to make proper acknowledgments, and God will not accept such attempts to worship him.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 5:23-24

Be reconciled to thy brother.

Mutual conciliation

I. That a worshipper of God may be in a state of discord in reference to his brother.

II. That public worship rightly used is one of the means to detect and remove this wrong affection. It leads to reflection.

III. Conciliation is of superior value even to public worship.

IV. That it is the duty of brethren to be immediately conciliated. (Caleb Morris.)

I. In order to worship God acceptably, we must do justice to our fellow-men. Our worship will not be acceptable, unless we do all we can to live peaceably with others.

II. It is our duty to seek reconciliation with others when we have injured them.

III. This should be done before we attempt to worship God. This is often the reason why God does not accept our offerings, and we go empty away from our devotions. We do not do what we ought to do to others; we cherish improper feelings, or refuse to make proper acknowledgments, and God will not accept such attempts to worship Him. (Dr. A. Barnes.)

I. Observe the word brother.

1. So God teaches thee to call every one.

2. Think with what tenderness and love thou oughtest, and perhaps wouldst behave to him, if he really were such.

II. Does not Christ Himself call the Scribes and Pharisees fools? Truly; but with Divine compassion, to rouse them to a consideration of their state.

(1) The sin is in the anger, the scorn,

(2) the pride of heart in one sinner towards another.

III. Nothing will be accepted from thee in this disposition.

1. Agree with thy brother.

2. The loss of an hour may be the loss of thy soul. (Thomas Adam.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift] Evil must be nipped in the bud. An unkind thought of another may be the foundation of that which leads to actual murder. A Christian, properly speaking, cannot be an enemy to any man; nor is he to consider any man his enemy, without the fullest evidence: for surmises to the prejudice of another can never rest in the bosom of him who has the love of God in his heart, for to him all men are brethren. He sees all men as children of God, and members of Christ, or at least capable of becoming such. If a tender forgiving spirit was required, even in a Jew, when he approached God’s altar with a bullock or a lamb, how much more necessary is this in a man who professes to be a follower of the Lamb of God; especially when he receives the symbols of that Sacrifice which was offered for the life of the world, in what is commonly called the sacrament of the Lord’s supper!

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The Jews were to offer gifts and sacrifices, Heb 5:1. Their gifts were their free will offerings, they were the most frequent oblations amongst the Jews, as may appear from Leviticus, and what the priests pressed with the greatest importunity, as may appear from Mar 7:11; therefore our Saviour instanceth in these, rather than in other parts of their worship. Bring unto God the best and most acceptable sacrifices (in your or, the teachers judgment) that you can, if there be found malice or rash anger in your hearts, God will not accept them. Therefore, how near soever you be come to a religious action, if you there remember that your brother hath a just reason to be offended with you, for any malice or rash anger showed or expressed by you, do not think this will discharge you of your obligation to pay your homage to God; but forbear a while,

leave your gift before the altar, and do what in you lies to be reconciled to your brother, to have a placable spirit to him, to purge your heart of wrath and malice, and any desire of revenge,

and then come and offer your gift, pay that homage which you owe, and it was in your heart to pay to God. It is a text usually applied with reference to communion with God in the Lords supper, but equally extensive to any other part of worship, hearing the word, Jam 1:21, and prayer, 1Ti 2:8. God accepteth no service, no homage, from an implacable, malicious heart.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

23. Thereforeto apply theforegoing, and show its paramount importance.

if thou bring thy gift to thealtar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aughtofjust complaint “against thee.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar,…. The Jews obliged such who had done any damage to their neighbours, by stealing from them, to make satisfaction before they brought their offering; concerning which they say c,

“he that brings what he has stolen, before he brings his trespass offering, is right; he that brings his trespass offering, before he brings that which he has stolen, is not right.”

Again d,

“they do not bring the trespass offering before the sum of what is stolen is returned, either to the owners, or to the priests.”

Some have thought Christ refers to this; only what they restrained to pecuniary damages, he extends to all sorts of offences. But not a trespass offering, but a freewill offering, seems to be designed by “the gift”: which, when a man either intended to bring, or was going to bring, or had already brought, as a voluntary sacrifice to be offered unto God; and it came into his mind, that he had offended any man by showing any undue passion, or by any reproachful words, then he was to do what is advised in the following verse: “and there”, whilst going, or when at the altar,

rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee: hath anything to charge thee with; any just ground of complaint against thee; if thou hast done him any injury, or given him any offence: particularly, if he had at any time said Raca to him, or called him “fool” for those words have reference to what goes before, and are a corollary, or conclusion from them, as appears from the causal particle “therefore”.

c Misn. Bava Kama, c. 9. sect. 12. d Maimon. Hilch. Gezela, c. 8. sect. 13.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

1) “Therefore If thou bring thy gift to the altar,” (ean oun prosphes to doron sou epi to thusiasterion) “Therefore if you as an individual bring your gift to the altar,” as an act or form of external, public worship. All brought to God’s altar is to be a gift, whether it be things or persons who appear there, Deu 16:16-17.

2) “And there rememberest,” (kakei mnesthes) “And out there (before the altar) dost recall,” or remember, as you should if such exists, 1Jn 2:9-11.

3) “That thy brother hath ought against thee;” (hoti ho adelphos sou echei ti kata sou) “That your brother has or holds (in malice, anger, or an old grudge) something against you personally,” an ill feeling that causes a breach of fellowship between you two, Eph 4:30-32.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Mat 5:23

. Therefore, if thou shalt bring thy gift This clause confirms, and at the same time explains, the preceding doctrine. It amounts to this, that the precept of the law, which forbids murder, (Exo 20:13,) is obeyed, when we maintain agreement and brotherly kindness, with our neighbor. To impress this more strongly upon us, Christ declares, that even the duties of religion are displeasing to God, and are rejected by him, if we are at variance with each other. When he commands those who have injured any of their brethren, to be reconciled to him, before they offer their gift, his meaning is, that, so long as a difference with our neighbor is kept up by our fault, we have no access to God. But if the worship, which men render to God, is polluted and corrupted by their resentments, this enables us to conclude, in what estimation he holds mutual agreement among ourselves.

Here a question may be put. Is it not absurd, that the duties of charity should be esteemed more highly than the worship of God? We shall then be forced to say, that the order of the law is improper, or that the first table of the law must be preferred to the second. The answer is easy: for the words of Christ mean nothing more than this, that it is a false and empty profession of worshipping God, which is made by those who, after acting unjustly towards their brethren, treat them with haughty disdain. By a synecdoche he takes a single class to express the outward exercises of divine worship, which in many men are rather the pretenses, than the true expressions, of godliness. It ought to be observed that Christ, adapting his discourse to that age, speaks of sacrifices. Our condition is now different: but the doctrine remains the same, that whatever we offer to God is polluted, unless, at least as much as lieth in us, (Rom 12:18,) we are at peace with our brethren. Alms are called in Scripture sacrifices of a sweet smell, (Phi 4:18😉 and we learn from the mouth of Paul, that he who

“

spends all his substance on the poor, if he have not charity, is nothing,” (1Co 13:3.)

Lastly, God does not receive and acknowledge, as his sons, any who do not, in their turn, show themselves to be brethren to each other. Although it is only to those who have injured their brethren that these words are addressed, enjoining them to do their endeavor to be reconciled to them, yet under one class he points out, how highly the harmony of brethren is esteemed by God. When he commands them to leave the gift before the altar, he expresses much more than if he had said, that it is to no purpose for men to go to the temple, or offer sacrifices to God, so long as they live in discord with their neighbors.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(23) If thou bring thy gift to the altar.Literally, If thou shouldst be offering. Our Lord was speaking to Jews as such, and paints, therefore, as it were, a scene in the Jewish Temple. The worshipper is about to offer a gift (the most generic term seems intentionally used to represent any kind of offering), and stands at the altar with the priest waiting to do his work. That is the right time for recollection and self-scrutiny. The worshipper is to ask himself, not whether he has a ground of complaint against any one, but whether any one has cause of complaint against him. This, and not the other, is the right question at such a momenthas he injured his neighbour by act, or spoken bitter words of him?

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

23. Therefore As an inference drawn from the severe penalties affixed in the last verse to all injuries, even in purpose, committed by us against another. If thou bring thy gift to the altar The image is taken from the sacrifices of the Old Testament. It stands as a symbol for all drawing nigh to God under the new dispensation. Our bringing our gift is the presentation of any worship or service to God. Rememberest In that state of recollectedness and self-examination which true worship implies. Hath aught against thee Aught, or anything, that is, of any of the injuries specified in the last verse. Observe, our Lord is not referring to the case where we are angry, because some one hath injured us. It is the case in which we have injured another, and have made no proper reparation.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar,”

And there remember that your brother has anything against you,

Leave there your gift before the altar,

And go your way, first be reconciled to your brother,

And then come and offer your gift.”

Jesus then comes down to practicalities. Of course such ‘crimes’ will probably not end up in court. But let them still be aware that the great Judge of all knows all about them. And He will not treat lightly those who behave in this way and are unrepentant. For they have caused disharmony among God’s people, and have been involved in false accusation. The Law had always stressed the importance of removing causes of anger by face to face contact with the other party (Lev 19:17), but it was not something that was commonly practised. It was, however, to be practised by His disciples.

So if they are considering coming before Him with gifts while still being unreconciled to someone against whom they have sinned, (or who alternately may have sinned against them), let them pause and think. They are coming before the Judge of all Who knows their hearts. Let them remember, ‘Blessed are the meek, blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are those who seek righteousness.’ So if as they approach the priests with their offering they recall that they know of someone who holds something against them, they should leave aside their gift before the altar, (that is, unoffered), and first go and seek reconciliation with their brother or sister. Then when that is achieved they may come and offer their gift, confident that it will be accepted.

The first point that we gather here is that in their unreconciled state there is no point in them offering their gift (compare Jer 7:9-10). It can only bring judgment on them (compare here 1Co 11:27-32). It may seem perfectly acceptable to men, and to the priests, but it will not be acceptable to God. He will not give regard their gift, but will rather regard their undealt with sin, and the disharmony among His people, and He will thus have no regard for their prayers (see Isa 1:12-15; 1Sa 15:22; Psa 66:18). The second is the need for positive action in seeking reconciliation. We may feel that it was all the brother’s fault, (just as he probably thinks it was all our fault), but that must not stop us from seeking to be reconciled to our brother. What is wrong between us must first be put right, and we have a responsibility to see to it in humility and love. If we would be right before God, we must be right with the world. And such reconciliation always involves compromise and a willingness to come to terms. The third point is that once we are reconciled, or at least have made a real and genuine attempt to be so, then God will accept our gift. It will then be noted before God to Whom all hearts are open and from Whom no secrets are hidden.

This does, however, raise the question as to who is our ‘brother or sister’ in these terms. While Jesus would undoubtedly have felt that it was most important for this to happen among His disciples in their relationships with each other (the Qumran community were strong on the idea of harmony within the community) it is probable that He was not restricting it to that. For as He would point out later even Gentiles can behave like that with those whom they love (Mat 5:44-48). Nor is He limiting it to fellow-Jews, as His parable of the Good Samaritan brings out (Luk 10:29-37). Indeed these examples may confirm that He in fact means by ‘brother and sister’ all men and women of reasonable goodwill (compare Mat 25:40, where all nations are gathered, and ‘these’ are not differentiated from the nations apart from their having been in need).

(We say those of reasonable goodwill because to approach those who have no goodwill would be useless, and might even heighten animosity and bring reprisals. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent. But even some of these may be won over by a genuine revealing of love and sorrow over failure ).

Imagine what an impression it would make if one Sunday in our churches the minister were to say, ‘Our next hymn (or song) is number 64, but before we dare to try to sing it let us first be reconciled with all in church who have anything against us’, and this was followed by a period in which there was a genuine attempt to fulfil what he asked. Revival might well break out. And yet the truth is that for us to sing a hymn without being reconciled to others is to make us like these who brought their gifts to the altar and took no notice of what Jesus had said. We need therefore to heed the warning that followed.

It will be noted that the assumption behind these words is that the people in question (His disciples) are in the habit of going to the Temple and bringing their gifts to the altar (note the ‘continual’ tense). It is spoken of as the natural thing for them to do. Thus it demonstrates that these words were spoken well before 70 AD. The description is far too descriptive and detailed to be simply metaphorical. Thus it fits perfectly into the time of the teaching of Jesus, while it fits not at all into a late first century or a Gentile environment, except in a very secondary way.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus presents the positive side of His exposition:

v. 23. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,

v. 24. leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

The forgiving attitude is pictured from a happening which was very frequent among the Jews, with which they were thoroughly familiar. A Jew might bring his Corban, his gift, used of every kind of bloody and unbloody sacrifice which was brought to the Temple, Mat 8:4; Mat 15:5; Mat 23:8. But in the very act of handing it to the officiating priest at the altar there comes the remembrance. It suddenly flashes into his mind that he has been guilty of an act or a word which might have provoked a brother. The natural way of dealing with the situation might seem to be to keep on with the worship, get through as quickly as possible, and then hurry to make peace with the offended. But Christ tells us to interrupt our worship and go on the errand of seeking forgiveness first, though it may seem profane to do so. It is more important that the heart be free from anxiety for a brother’s peace of mind than that an external rite be performed: mercy before sacrifice. There will be plenty of time for sacrificing afterward. See Isa 58:4-7.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 5:23-24. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift Farther, to quench the first and smallest sparks of enmity, and prevent all occasion of angry resentments, our Lord adds what follows from this to the 26th verse; for so far his advice extends, with regard to the sixth commandment. Our Lord insisted particularly on reparation, assuring us, that unless it be made, God will not accept the worshipof such offenders; being infinitely better pleased with repentance than with sacrifices, or external worship of any kind, how precious soever those duties may appear in the eyes of carnal men. Vain, therefore, is their presumption, who fancy they can make amends for yet more gross acts of injustice, by acts of devotion: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift, , thy free-will offering, to the altar, and there recollect that thy brother hath aught against thee,any just cause of complaint; leave there thy gift before the altar:do not lay aside the thoughts of worshipping God, because thou art not in a proper state, but prepare thyself for his worship without delay; go thy way; first be reconciled,” &c. It is observable, that Philo, in explaining the law of the trespass-offering, tells us, that, when a man had injured his brother, and, repenting of his fault, voluntarily acknowledged it, (in which case both restitution and sacrifice were required,) he was first to make restitution, and then to come into the temple, presenting his sacrifice, and asking pardon. This is a veryjust and natural account of the matter, and adds a great illustration to this text. See Macknight and Doddri

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 5:23 f. ] If thou, then, art about to present thy sacrifice ( , Mat 8:4 , Mat 15:5 , Mat 23:18 , also in the LXX., Apocrypha, and Greek writers); consequently, art already occupied with the preparation of the same in the temple. [408] This explanation is required by the words . ( ad aram ), Mat 5:24 .

.] to the altar , in order that the priests may offer it upon the same.

, . . .] “inter rem sacram magis subit recordatio offensarum, quam in strepitu negotiorum,” Bengel. The injured part is the ; differently in Mar 11:25 , where forgiveness is required.

. .] A closer definition added to .

] in the first place (Mat 6:33 ), before everything else, what thou now hast to do. Compare afterwards. It is to be connected with (Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, and many others; also Gersdorf, p. 107; de Wette, Ewald, Arnoldi, Bleek). Comp. Mat 7:5 , Mat 13:30 , Mat 23:26 . The connection with . (Beza, Calvin, Er. Schmidt, and many others; also Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others) overlooks the essential moment which is contained in the connection precisely by the , the unavoidable, surprising, nay, repellent removal of oneself from the temple. For that is not here merely an appeal, age , is shown by the context through the words , etc. In Mat 18:15 , Mat 19:21 , also, it means abi .

] be reconciled , deal so that a reconciliation may begin with him who has been injured by thee. Comp. 1Sa 29:4 , and on the passage 1Co 7:11 . In this way the act of sacrifice receives the moral foundation of a disposition pleasing to God, by which it is no mere external work, but is at the same time , Rom 12:1 . Flacius well remarks, s.v. munus: “Vult primam haberi rationem moralium, secundum ceremonialium.” Moreover, the distinction asserted by Tittmann to exist between and , that the former denotes the removal of mutual hostility, the latter that of one-sided enmity ( Synon . p. 102), is decidedly erroneous. Fritzsche, ad Rom . I. p. 276 ff.

[408] The severance of the Jewish believers from the temple service was only to begin at a later time, Joh 4:21 . The Catholic exegesis knows, indeed, how to find here the permanent sacrifice of the Eucharist, regarding which Christ is said in the passage before us to have given a law which is for ever valid, Dllinger, Christenthum und Kirche , p. 250 f., Exo 2 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1301
THE NECESSITY OF SEEKING RECONCILIATION WITH MEN

Mat 5:23-24. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

THE explanation which our Lord has given us of the sixth commandment, shews, that we are not to confine the import of the commandments to the mere letter of them, but to regard them as extending to the words of our lips, and the dispositions of our hearts. Nor must we imagine that they are intended solely to prohibit sin: they must be understood as inculcating all those virtues which are opposed to the sin forbidden. This is evident from the connexion in which our text stands with the preceding context. Our blessed Lord had declared, that a wrathful word was in fact a species and degree of murder: and from thence he takes occasion to inculcate the necessity of exercising in every respect a spirit of love, so as, not only to entertain no anger in ones own heart against others, but so as not to leave room for the exercise of it in the hearts of others towards us. The direction which he gives us respecting it will lead us to shew,

The duty of seeking reconciliation with men

Wild beasts are scarcely more prone to injure their own species, than man is to oppress and injure his fellow-man. Indeed, considering what tempers we have, and what tempers exist in others, and what frequent occasions of interference with each other must of necessity arise, it would be a miracle if any of us had so conducted himself on all occasions, that no brother should on any account have ought against him. We apprehend that no one who knows any thing of his own heart, would profess himself so perfect, as never to have done towards another any thing differently from what he would have wished to be done towards himself. Supposing then that a brother have ought against us, what is to be done? I answer,

We should be willing to see our fault

[There is in us a self-love, which blinds our eyes, and prevents us from seeing our own defects. Whatever relates to ourselves, we view in a partial light; so that we scarce ever attach any material blame to ourselves. Every one complains of the injuries he receives, but not of the injuries he commits. Take the report of mankind respecting each other, and the world is full of injuries; but take each persons report of himself, and no occasion of complaint wall be found to exist. But it would be far better to put ourselves in the place of those who are offended with us; and, instead of extenuating our own offences and aggravating theirs, to view the extenuations of theirs, and the aggravations of our own. This would be doing as we would be done unto; and, if the habit of it were universal, it would soon root out all contention from the world.]

We should be ready to ask pardon for it

[This is a condescension to which men in general are very averse to stoop. They would regard it as an act of meanness and cowardice; and therefore, even when conscious that they are wrong, they will rather risk the loss of their lives than submit to it. But no man should be ashamed to make a suitable apology for any offence he may have committed. When the friends of Job had, even with a good intention, criminated him on account of supposed hypocrisy, God was incensed against them for their uncharitable conduct, and ordered them to make their acknowledgments to Job himself, and to entreat his intercession in their behalf. It was no excuse for them that they had been mistaken, or that they had intended well, or even that they had been actuated by a zeal for God: they had wounded the feelings, and defamed the character, of Job; and if ever they would obtain forgiveness from God, they must first of all ask forgiveness from their injured friend [Note: Job 42:7-8.]. Thus must we do: it is an act of justice which we owe to man; and an act of obedience which we owe to God.]

We should be desirous to make reparation for it

[This was expressly required under the law [Note: Lev 6:2-6.]: and it was practised under the Gospel. No sooner was Zaccheus converted to the faith, than he engaged to restore fourfold to any person whom in his unconverted state he had defrauded [Note: Luk 19:8.]. And it is in vain to affect penitence, if we be not unfeignedly determined to make reparation, as far as is in our power, for any injury we may have clone. Who would give credit to a man for penitence, whilst he wilfully retained the goods that he had stolen? Sincere contrition would urge him to undo whatever he had done amiss. And the same principle would produce the same effects in every person under heaven.]

Such is our duty towards an offended brother. We now proceed to state,

II.

The importance of it in order to our acceptance with God

The command here given, to suspend the exercise of a solemn duty to God till we shall have performed this duty to man, shews,

That no duties whatever can supersede the necessity of it

[It is here taken for granted, that men will bring their gifts to Gods altar, or, in other words, will draw nigh to him in the use of all his appointed ordinances. But will works of piety procure us a dispensation from the duties of the second table? Will the making of long prayers be any compensation for devouring widows houses; or the paying tithe of mint and anise and cummin atone for neglecting the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and truth? No such commutation will be admitted by God; no such reserves allowed: his word to us, under all such circumstances, is, These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.]

That no duties whatever will be accepted without it

[A person is represented here as already with his offering before Gods altar. But what says the word of God unto him? Finish thine offering to me, and then go and be reconciled to thy brother? No: it is, Go thy way; depart from my altar; leave thy gift there, that it may be ready for thee to offer when thou art reconciled to thy brother: but do not for a moment think of approaching me with acceptance, whilst thy brothers rights are overlooked. The prayer of the upright is doubtless Gods delight: but, when presented by one who regards iniquity in his heart, it not only shall not be heard, but it shall be held in utter abomination [Note: Pro 15:8; Pro 21:27.]. Hear how solemnly God protests against all such hypocritical services [Note: Isa 1:11-15. Amo 5:21-24.] It is not in the power of words to express more sovereign contempt, or more rooted abhorrence, of such services, than is conveyed in these passages: and we may be assured, that if we attempt to draw nigh to God, either at his table or at the footstool of his grace, he will spurn us from him with indignation. Let us be ever so urgent in our supplications, his only answer will be, Go thy way.

Let us not however be misunderstood on this subject: we are not to imagine, that the circumstance of our being at variance with a brother is any excuse for staying away from the Lords table: (it were strange indeed if a want of love to man would excuse a want of piety to God:) this is certainly not the meaning of our text: the meaning is, that, as we cannot be accepted of God in such a state, it becomes us without delay to seek reconciliation with our offended brother.
From this subject we may learn,

The necessity of frequent self-examination

[It is here supposed that a person may be living in the exercise of religious duties, and, without being conscious of his danger, may be in a state wherein neither his person nor his services can be accepted of God: he goes to the altar of his God as usual, and there recollects that his brother has some cause of complaint against him. Alas! there are many such self-deceiving people in the Christian world at this time. But how terrible! and they continue in their delusions till God himself shall bring their sins to remembrance at his judgment-seat! How dreadful will it then be to be told, Go thy way! Let us then live in the habit of daily self-examination: let us not leave any of our ways unnoticed, lest some hidden evil remain unrepented of, and separate between us and our God for ever. Especially when about to come to the supper of our Lord, let us try our ways with more than common jealousy, according to that advice of the Apostle, Let a man examine himself, and so let him come [Note: 1Co 11:28.]. Let us go back to our early days, and ask, Whom have we offended? whom defrauded? whom calumniated? whom encouraged in the ways of sin, or discouraged in the ways of piety and virtue? And, whilst we are careful to wash away our stains in the Fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness, let us be no less careful to obtain forgiveness of man, and to remedy the evils which we are unable to recall.]

The necessity of cultivating a humble spirit

[It is pride which renders us so averse to ask forgiveness of a fellow-creature. But we have no alternative: if we will not seek reconciliation with an offended brother, we shall not obtain it with an offended God. Let us only get our spirits humbled with a sense of sin, and all the difficulty will vanish. We shall even feel a pleasure in making any acknowledgment which may tend to restore harmony and love. Even, if we are not conscious of having given any just occasion of offence, we shall not be satisfied, whilst we see a brother alienated from us: we shall be anxious to find the cause of his displeasure; to explain any thing which he may have misapprehended, and alter any thing he may have disapproved. In short, if the Gospel had its due effect upon us, we should, as far as our influence extended, convert this wilderness into another Paradise. Our swords would immediately be turned into ploughshares; and the wolf and the lamb would dwell together in perfect amity: there would be none to hurt or to destroy in all Gods holy mountain. O that we could see such a state existing all around us! Let us at least endeavour to produce it in our respective circles. Let us appreciate as we ought the comfort of love, and the excellency of a Christian spirit. And let us seek that wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy [Note: Jam 3:17.].]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

CHRIST is our New Testament Altar, neither have we any other. It is painful to hear men call the communion table Altar, a name which belongs only to JESUS. But seen in this point of view, when drawing nigh at any time to JESUS, and recollecting some offence given to our brother, how truly doth this correspond to the union and harmony subsisting between CHRIST and his members, to come to Him as the Head, and to bring with us by faith, the whole body in our arms to the Lord. Joh 17:21 ; 1Co 12:25-27 . For the members are to have the same care one for another, as one member of the body hath for its fellow member.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

Ver. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar ] To anger our Saviour here opposeth charity, which suffereth long and is kind. Charity envieth not, nor is rash, &c.; but beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Strangers we must love as ourselves, Luk 10:27-28 ; but brethren, as Christ loved us, with a preventing constant love, Joh 15:15 , notwithstanding provocations to the contrary.

That thy brother hath aught against thee ] As justly offended by thee: see the like phrase, Luk 7:39 ; Rev 2:4 . If either thou have given offence carelessly, or taken offence causelessly. And two flints may as soon smite together, and not fire come out, as people converse together, and not offences happen. Now, if it be a great offence, a considerable injury, to the just grief or disgrace of another, satisfaction must be given, and reconciliation sought (at least), ere the service can be accepted. For how can we look our Father in the face, or ask him blessing, when we know that he knows there is hatred or heart burning between us and our brethren?

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

23 f. ] an inference from the guilt and danger of all bitterness and hostility of mind towards another, declared in the preceding verse. Chrysostom remarks: , , . , , . Hom. xvi. 10, p. 218. The whole of his comment on this verse is excellent. The is any kind of gift sacrificial or eucharistic.

is remarkable, as being purposely substituted for the converse. It is not what complaints we have against others that we are to consider at such a time, but what they have against us; not what ground we have given for complaint, but what complaints they , as matter of fact, make against us. See the other side dealt with, Mar 11:25 .

Tholuck has shewn at length (p. 187, ff.) that the distinction attempted to be set up between as implying a mutual , and , a merely one-sided reconciliation, has no foundation in fact. Our is simply become reconciled thyself , without being influenced by the status of the other towards thee. Remove the offence, and make friendly overtures to thy brother. belongs to , not to , (1) because . is opposed to , the departure to the return , not to ; (2) by the analogy of the usage of such adverbs with imperatives. Compare ch. Mat 7:5 and the similar passage, Luk 6:42 ; ch. Mat 6:33 ; Mat 13:30 : Mar 7:27 . No conclusion whatever can be drawn from this verse as to the admissibility of the term altar as applied to the Lord’s Table under the Christian system. The whole language is Jewish, and can only be understood of Jewish rites. The command , of course, applies in full force as to reconciliation before the Christian offering of praise and thanksgiving in the Holy Communion; but further nothing can be inferred.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 5:23-24 . Holtzmann (H. C.) regards these verses, as well as the two following, as an addition by the evangelist. But the passage is at least in thorough harmony with what goes before, as well as with the whole discourse. , if thou art in the very act of presenting thine offering (present tense) at the altar. , and it suddenly flashes through thy mind there that thou hast done something to a brother man fitted to provoke angry feeling in him. What then? Get through with thy worship as fast as possible and go directly after and make peace with the offended? No, interrupt the religious action and go on that errand first. . Lay it down on the spur of the moment before the altar without handing it to the priest to be offered by him in thy stead. . The is to be joined to , not to the following verb as in A. V [22] and R. V [23] ( stands after the verb also in chaps. Mat 6:33 , Mat 7:5 ). First go : remove thyself from the temple, break off thy worship, though it may seem profane to do so. : no contempt for religious service expressed or implied. Holtzmann (H. C.) asks, did Jesus offer sacrifice? and answers, hardly. In any case He respected the practice. But, reconciliation before sacrifice: morality before religion. Significant utterance, first announcement of a great principle often repeated, systematically neglected by the religion of the time. Placability before sacrifice, mercy before sacrifice, filial affection and duty before sacrifice; so always in Christ’s teaching (Mat 9:13 ; Mat 15:5 ). : present; set about offering: plenty of time now for the sacred action.

[22] Authorised Version.

[23] Revised Version.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

bring = offer, as in Mat 5:24.

gift: i.e. sacrifice.

to = up to. Greek. epi.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

23 f. ] an inference from the guilt and danger of all bitterness and hostility of mind towards another, declared in the preceding verse. Chrysostom remarks: , , . , , . Hom. xvi. 10, p. 218. The whole of his comment on this verse is excellent. The is any kind of gift-sacrificial or eucharistic.

is remarkable, as being purposely substituted for the converse. It is not what complaints we have against others that we are to consider at such a time, but what they have against us; not what ground we have given for complaint, but what complaints they, as matter of fact, make against us. See the other side dealt with, Mar 11:25.

Tholuck has shewn at length (p. 187, ff.) that the distinction attempted to be set up between as implying a mutual, and , a merely one-sided reconciliation, has no foundation in fact. Our is simply become reconciled-thyself, without being influenced by the status of the other towards thee. Remove the offence, and make friendly overtures to thy brother. belongs to , not to , (1) because . is opposed to , the departure to the return, not to ; (2) by the analogy of the usage of such adverbs with imperatives. Compare ch. Mat 7:5 and the similar passage, Luk 6:42; ch. Mat 6:33; Mat 13:30 : Mar 7:27. No conclusion whatever can be drawn from this verse as to the admissibility of the term altar as applied to the Lords Table under the Christian system. The whole language is Jewish, and can only be understood of Jewish rites. The command, of course, applies in full force as to reconciliation before the Christian offering of praise and thanksgiving in the Holy Communion; but further nothing can be inferred.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 5:23. , …, if therefore, etc.) Reconciliation is not said to be only then necessary, for the word , there) indicates that you ought to have remembered it before; but the meaning is, Whatever you are doing, even if you have already undertaken the best and most holy and most necessary matter, leave everything until you have been reconciled to your brother: see Eph 4:26. They sin who do not make it up with their brother, until they are just about to receive the Holy Supper. Yet reconciliation is especially necessary, and an examination of the conscience especially imperative on those who are about to perform the most solemn act of devotion.-, to) For it was the part of the priest to offer on the altar, and afterwards occurs the expression, , before the altar.- , and there rememberest) The word of God portrays the most hidden secrets of the human heart. In the performance of a sacred rite, the remembrance of offences arises more naturally, than in the noise of human affairs.-, hath) as having been offended [by thee].

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

thou: Mat 8:4, Mat 23:19, Deu 16:16, Deu 16:17, 1Sa 15:22, Isa 1:10-17, Hos 6:6, Amo 5:21-24

rememberest: Gen 41:9, Gen 42:21, Gen 42:22, Gen 50:15-17, Lev 6:2-6, 1Ki 2:44, Lam 3:20, Eze 16:63, Luk 19:8

Reciprocal: Lev 6:5 – of his trespass offering Deu 26:4 – before the Job 42:8 – go Psa 4:5 – Offer Psa 26:6 – so will Mat 5:22 – his brother Luk 12:58 – thou goest 1Co 11:28 – and so 1Pe 3:7 – that

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5:23

Therefore is said because the last subject treated was the sin of showing the wrong attitude toward a brother. Under the law of Moses the Jews were encouraged to bring voluntary gifts to be consecrated to the Lord on the altar of sacrifices. These were in addition to the sacrifices specifically required on stated occasions or for specific purposes. Such an act was supposed to indicate that the giver was very much devoted to the Lord, and yet at the very time he might recall that his brother had a complaint against him. Such a complaint, for instance, could consist of calling him “a fool” according to the preceding verse.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

[That thy brother hath ought against thee, etc.]…that which the Jews restrained only to pecuniary damages, Christ extends to all offences against our brother.

“He that offers an oblation, not restoring that which he had unjustly taken away, does not do that which is his duty.” And again; “He that steals any thing from his neighbour, yea, though it be but a farthing, and swears falsely, is bound to restitution, meeting the wronged party half way.” See also Baal Turim upon Leviticus_6.

“An oblation is not offered for a sin, unless that which is [wrongfully] taken away, be first restored either to the owner or the priest.” In like manner, “He that swears falsely, either of the Pruta [small money], or what the Pruta is worth, is bound to inquire after the owner, even as far as the islands in the sea, and to make restitution.”

Observe, how provision is here made for pecuniary damages only and bare restitution, which might be done without a charitable mind and a brotherly heart. But Christ urgeth charity, reconciliation of mind, and a pure desire of reunion with our offended brother; and that not only in money matters, but in any other, and for whatever cause, wherein our neighbour complains that he is grieved.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 5:23. Therefore. Application of the teaching just uttered.

Art offering thy gift at the altar, engaged in what was then the highest act of worship. Even the most sacred act should make room for reconciliation.

And there rememberest. Proper worship makes us mindful of duty to others.

Thy brother, one closely connected with thee.

Hath aught against thee. The charge may be groundless, but still may give occasion to bad feeling on our part.

Leave there thy gift, etc. Better postpone even an acknowledged religious duty than the duty of reconciliation. The case is put in the strongest form.

Go thy way, not to neglect the religious duty, but in order to first be reconciled. The two clauses must be closely connected.

Then come and offer thy gift. The reconciliation does not make the worship unnecessary. Discharge of duty to men does not do away with duty to God. One truly reconciled to his brother is readiest to come to God in His appointed way.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

For preventing the sin of rash anger, which in our Savior’s account is a degree of murder, he exhorts all his disciples and followers to brotherly agreement, and to seek mutual reconciliation with each other. Agree with thine adversary, that is, thy offended or offending brother; agree with him, as becomes a man; quickly, as becomes a Christian; implying, that it is a necessary duty for every Christian to seek reconciliation sincerely and speedily with such as have offended him, or have been offended by him.

Observe, 2. The argument or motive with which Christ enforces his exhortation to brotherly reconciliation, drawn from the peril and danger of the neglect; and this is two-fold: The first respects our present duties and services, when we wait upon God at his altar, and attend upon him in holy offices. None of our performances will find malice and hatred, anger and ill-will, against our brother.

Learn, that no sacrifice we can offer will be acceptable to God, so long as we ourselves are implacable to men.

A second danger respects us, when we appear before God in judgement; then God will be our Adversary, Christ our Judge, Satan our accuser, hell our tormentor; If now from the heart we do not every one forgive our brother his trespasses.

Lord! how heinous then is this sin of inveterate anger, hatred, and malice, in our hearts, against any person! No gifts, though never so costly, no devotions, though never so specious, will prevail with God to pass it by, whilst we live: and if we die with hearts full of this rancour and bitterness, we can never expect to be encircled in the arms of Him who is all love, all mercy, all goodness and compassion: no reconciliation with God without an hearty good-will to all men.

Nay farther, the text here speaks of a prison, which is the dreadful dungeon of hell, into which the implacable and unreconciled person must be cast, and lie forever without mixture of pity; and it is not men’s scoffing at it that will secure them against the horror of it.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 5:23. Therefore, &c. Because men are very apt to fall into rash anger, and to express their anger by contemptuous speeches and abusive names, fancying that there is no sin in these things, or but little, and that the compensation may easily be made for them by acts of devotion, Jesus declares that atonement is not to be made for these offences by any offerings, how costly soever, and therefore prescribes immediate repentance and reparation as the only remedies of them. He insisted particularly on reparation, assuring us that, unless it be made, God will not accept the worship of such offenders, being infinitely better pleased with repentance than with sacrifices, or external worship of any kind, how specious soever those duties may appear in the eye of vulgar understandings. Vain, therefore, is their presumption, who fancy they can make amends for yet more gross acts of injustice, by acts of devotion. Macknight. If thou bring thy gift to the altar However costly and free; and there rememberest What thou didst not recollect before; that thy brother hath aught against thee On any of the preceding accounts, for any reproachful or unkind word, or injurious action: do not content thyself with a secret, and, it may be, a deceitful purpose that thou wilt hereafter accommodate the affair, but bring it to an immediate issue. Leave there thy gift before the altar In the hands of those that are ministering there: for neither thy gift nor thy prayer will atone for thy want of love and injurious conduct, but these will make thy devotions and oblations an abomination before God. Go thy way Do not lay aside thoughts of worshipping God, because thou art not in a proper state, but prepare thyself for his worship without delay. Be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift Which thou mayest then cheerfully hope God will accept at thy hand. Philo, (de Sacrif., p. 844,) explaining the law of the trespass- offering, tells us, That when a man had injured his brother, and, repenting of his fault, voluntarily acknowledged it, (in which case, both restitution and sacrifice were required,) he was first to make restitution, and then to come into the temple, presenting his sacrifice, and asking pardon. This greatly illustrates the text, especially considering that our Lord supposes, in this case, not a trespass-offering, but a voluntary gift, presented before the altar; and yet declares that this will not be accepted while there is a consciousness of having wronged a brother, and not made him reparation.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Leave there thy gift, &c. This is a precept both of law and of natural religion, which has been by Christ in this place most strictly sanctioned, both because by the Incarnation of Himself He has, in the very closest manner, united us all to Himself and to one another. This greater union, which we have therefore through Christ, demands greater love and unity among Christian brethren: so He has said, “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.” Furthermore, the sacrifice of the Eucharist is more holy than the ancient sacrifices. It is the gathering together and the communion of the Body, of which we all partake; and therefore we are all mutually united to Christ and one another. Hence it is called communion, that is, the common union of all. Since therefore the Eucharist is a sacrifice, as well as a Sacrament and profession of mutual love and peace, it is necessary that all discord should be done away, and that those who have offended should reconcile themselves to those whom they have offended before this holy Synaxis, lest they be found liars. For in truth he is a liar who takes the Sacrament of union, that is, the Eucharist, and is not in union with, but bears a grudge or rancour against, his neighbour.

This is why it used to be the custom at Mass, that before Holy Communion, Christians were wont to give one another a holy kiss, as a symbol of reconciliation and union, in place of which what is called the Pax is now bestowed.

S. John the Almoner, Patriarch of Alexandria, to fulfil literally this precept or counsel of Christ, was once standing at the altar to say Mass, when he remembered that a certain cleric had conceived a hatred for him, and although he was the offended party, yet he asked his pardon first, and being thus reconciled, he went with him joyfully to the altar and finished the sacrifice, saying with confidence to God, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” as Leontius records in his Life. He adds that the same John repelled Damianus, a deacon, from Communion, and said to him, “Go first and be reconciled to thy brother.” Damianus promised so to do, when the Patriarch gave him the Sacred Mysteries.

Agree, Gr. , i.e., be of good will, Syriac, a friend: with thine adversary, Gr. , i.e., thine accuser, thy prosecutor, Syriac,Beel dinoch, “the master, or lord of thy lawsuit,” Arabic, with him who is at law with thee: the uttermost fathing, i.e., of thy debt.

You will ask, who is this adversary? 1. Tertullian (lib. de Anim), answers, it is the devil. He is Satan, i.e., our adversary.

2. S. Athanasius, or whoever be the author of Qust. S. Script. ad Antioch. (qust. 26), thinks the adversary means the flesh: for it is an adversary to the soul. “For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” (Gal 5:17). But we must not agree either with the devil, or the flesh, which is what we are here told to do by Christ.

3. The same Athanasius says with better reason, elsewhere, that it is our conscience, for this is our adversary, and stings us when we do ill, until we agree with it, by following its dictates.

4. SS. Augustine, Anselm, and Bede are of opinion that God, or the law of God is meant, for these fight against our lusts. Wherefore clearly we ought to consent unto them, lest we incur the punishments with which they threaten us. But these are mystical, or symbolical interpretations.

Wherefore I say with SS. Jerome, Hilary, and Ambrose, that by our adversary is here meant any one who has been unjustly offended, or injured by us, and is therefore in a position to be able to accuse us before God. With such a one Christ in the preceding verse bade us be reconciled.

Note that there is here a Hebraism, and a parabolical form of expression, in which it is not necessary to adapt every word, but the general scope and meaning is what must be chiefly considered. And these, in this case, are rather hinted at than expressed. The sense then is this:-As a debtor, or one who is accused by a prosecutor before a judge, acts prudently if he agree with his adversary before judgment, and so escape the condemnation of the judge, prison, or infamy, so in like manner do thou act; and if thou hast injured thy brother in any way, as for instance by calling him raca, or a fool, thou hast made thyself a debtor, as it were, to restore him to honour: come in then, and be reconciled with him speedily, before thou be delivered as guilty to God the judge, who by a righteous vengeance shall deliver thee to prison, until thou shalt pay all thy debt. That prison is hell, or purgatory, according to the greater or less heinousness of thy sin. The word until, seems to bear a reference to purgatory, as though it signified terminable punishment, which is purgatory, whereas the punishment of hell has no end.

Farthing. Greek, . This is a word which has been borrowed from the Latin, like many others which are found in the Evangelists, such as prtorium, centurio, &c.

The quadrans, here translated farthing, was the fourth part of the Roman as, and is put for any very small coin. And the spiritual application is, that every debt, even the very least of the fault of anger, must be paid and atoned for after this life, in the place of justice. Wherefore in this life, where is the place for mercy, agreement and pardon, let us be reconciled to our adversary-i.e., whomsoever we have injured, either by word or deed. I have read in a history that a certain servant who had departed this life appeared to his master, who asked him of his state and condition. The servant answered, “I am in that place where every debt is exactly and rigidly reckoned, and where not so much as a straw is overlooked.” Doctor Jacobus also relates that a certain religious man, who had departed this life, appeared in vile raiment and with a sad countenance, and said to a companion, “No one believes, no one believes, no one believes how strictly God judges, and how severely He punishes.”

Ver. 27 and 28.-Ye have heard, &c. . . to lust after her-that is, with the design and object of indulging sinful passion with her-hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. Because by adultery he hath already corrupted her in his mind, and therefore before God, who beholds the heart, he is an adulterer, and as an adulterer he will be punished by Him.

Christ passes from anger to concupiscence, because these two passions have the greatest influence over men. And as He explained the commandment, Thou shall nor kill, to forbid anger, so He here explains Thou shall not commit adultery to forbid concupiscence. For many of the Scribes and Pharisees greatly erred in their exposition of this precept as well as of the former. For although they knew that it was commanded by the tenth precept of the Decalogue, Thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nevertheless they erred-1. Because they understood it of concupiscence, not altogether internal, but such as is wont to break out in touch, kisses, lascivious words, and such like, according to the maxim, “The law prohibits the hand, not the mind.” But this is true of civil and state law, which only punishes external wrongdoing, but not of the law of God, which weighs and chastises the inmost thoughts of the heart. Josephus, the Jewish historian, fell into this very mistake, when, in the twelfth book of his Antiquities, he cites Polybius as saying that Antiochus Epiphanes perished miserably because he had wished to spoil the temple of Diana. Josephus finds fault with Polybius, saying, “To have wished merely, and not to have effected the sacrilege, does not seem a thing worthy of punishment.” And R. David Kimchi, cited by Gerebrard (Ps. lxvi.), says, “Even if I should see iniquity in my heart, which I was even prepared to carry out in act, that it should be in the presence of God, and if I should utter it with my lips, yet will not God hear it-i.e., it will not be imputed to me for wickedness. For God does not reckon an evil thought as a work, unless it be against the faith of God and religion.” Thus, too, there are many in this day who say, “To think evil is not a sin, but to do evil.”

But this is a crass error, known and confuted by Aristotle and other heathens. For free will is the proper test and criterion of goodness and wickedness, of virtue and vice. For if free will seeks what is good and honest, it is itself good and laudable; but if evil, it is evil and blameworthy. Wherefore the external act, as, for instance, of adultery, is not, speaking precisely, a sin in itself (as in plain from the case of idiots being adulterers), unless it proceeded from free will. For from free will it derives all its formal sinfulness.

2. The Scribes erred in thinking that immodest looks, touch, kisses, &c., were not sins of adultery and fornication, but of concupiscence, and so were done against the Tenth Commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, but not against the Seventh. In opposition to this Christ here teaches the contrary, and so expounds the Seventh Commandment that all impurity is forbidden by it, because all such things are the road to adultery, and so a kind of beginning of adultery.

3. They were in error who thought that by this commandment only concupiscence in respect to another man’s wife, but not of any unmarried woman, was forbidden. This error Christ here corrects, and teaches that all impurity between the sexes is forbidden by this law.

Vers. 29 and 30.-But if thy right eye, &c. It is plain that there are here two parables, taken from the two most excellent and most useful of our bodily members-the right eye and the right hand. And Christ signifies that everything which entices us to sin must be cast away, however dear, precious, and necessary it may be to us. He makes mention of the eye first, because he had just before said, Whoso looketh upon a woman, &c. 1. Thus, S. Chrysostom (Hom. 17), by the right eye and hand, understands a woman beloved, such a one as he had just been speaking of, that she must be cast off, if by her look, voice, or gesture she provoke to lust. 2. S. Augustine (lib. de Serm. Dom. in Mont., lib. 1), understands any friend and minister, even one who is necessary. 3. S. Hilary, Theophylact (in loc.), Cyril, Pacian (Epist. 3), understand parents and relations, that intercourse with them must be cut off, if it leads us into sin. 4. S. Jerome understands affections and vices of the mind. 5. Auctor Imperfecti considers that by the right eye and hand the mind and will are meant, which must be called away from carnal pleasures.

But more simply and plainly you may take the right eye and hand to be actually meant, but in such a sense as to subserve the meaning of the parable, and to be parabolically explained. For there is here a continuous parable, in which Christ has regard to concupiscence of sight. Christ is dealing with such an implied objection as this which follows: “You may urge that if the eye and the sight are adulterous when they look upon a woman to lust after her, what then shall I do with the eyes which God has given me to see with?”

Again, it is a metaphor taken from surgery. As those who are sick and injured take care that a surgeon should amputate or remove the most noble and useful of our members, if their remaining imperil the safety of the whole body; so, also, I admonish you, 0 my faithful people, that ye endure any loss whatsoever, rather than commit a sin, especially a deadly sin; that, indeed, whatever is a stumbling-block to you and draws you to sin, although it be as dear and necessary to you as your right eye, you should altogether pluck it out and cast it from you, at whatever cost to you of pain and inconvenience: for example, that ye should put away the sight of an eye, even if modest in other respects, that is, the friendship and society of female relations, a wife, a son, a parent, if they bring upon you peril of sin, i.e., if by other means you are not able to escape sin, for it is better to enter into heaven having one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell. But because it is always possible to escape from sin in some other way than by cutting off a member, it is not lawful to cut it off and so mutilate oneself. Thus it was that Origen, who made himself a eunuch for the sake of chastity, was condemned by the Church. Finally, the concupiscences which have to be cut off and mortified by every one so tenaciously cleave to the eyes and the body, yea, to the soul itself, that they cannot be rooted out without great force and sense of pain, so that they who cut them off suffer as much as if they plucked out an eye or a tooth. They who have gone through it know what it is. Whence it is called mortification, because it produces the feeling and pain of death.

Thus according to the letter, SS. Aquilinus and Andomarus, as is related in their Lives in Surius, who had been blind, and recovered their sight by a miracle, asked of God that they might be again deprived of sight, that they might be free from the distractions and temptations to which sight gives rise. Furthermore it was by a special leading of God that the virgin mentioned in the Spiritual Meadow of Sophronius, plucked out her eyes and sent them to her lover, who persecuted her with his attentions, because he was ravished with the beauty of her eyes. When he received this gift the lover was smitten with compunction, and exchanged his secular for a monastic life.

S. Antonius asked Didymus, a blind man, whom S. Jerome calls his seer, that is, his teacher, if he grieved over his blindness. He was silent for a little while, and nodded; then he said, “A prudent man ought not to grieve because he is without eyes, which are possessed by flies and bees; but he ought to rejoice, because he has greater opportunities for opening the eyes of his mind, by which he may see God and divine things.”

Ver. 31.-It has been said, &c. See what I have written upon the giving a bill of divorce in Deu 24:1.

Ver. 32.-But I say unto you, &c. Christ here corrects and settles the law of divorce. 1. Because the law easily conceded divorce for various causes. But Christ permits it only on account of fornication, if a wife be an adulteress; and from an adulterer the innocent wife is at liberty to depart, according to that maxim, “If a man break his marriage vow that may be broken with him.” 2. The Law conceded both to the woman who was put away, and to the husband who repudiated her, the liberty of contracting a second marriage. But Christ denies it to both. 3. The Law conceded to the husband alone the power of giving a writing of divorcement. But Christ, with respect to this matrimonial right places the man and the woman upon a perfect equality, as S. Paul teaches, 1Co 7:4.

Except for the cause of fornication. By fornication here some understand any sin whatever, that is, in the form of a sort of spiritual fornication with any creature, leaving God, the Creator and Husband of the Soul. Thus S. Augustine, Origen, in loc. But this is taking it in too loose a sense.

By fornication others understand infidelity. For this is constantly called fornication by the prophets, that is to say, spiritual and mystical fornication.

But expositors, ancient and modern, passim, understand fornication here in its strict, literal sense, as denoting all illicit sexual intercourse.

You will say it is lawful to put away a wife if she endeavour to draw her husband into any sin, as is laid down in the chapter, Qusivi de divortiis, and as Christ Himself sufficiently indicates, ver. 29. Also if the wife practise sorcery, or compass her husband’s death; so that it is lawful to put a wife away for other causes besides fornication.

I answer, what you say is true, but Christ here assigns fornication as the only cause of divorce, both because it is the only proper cause of divorce, speaking in a strict sense, from marriage, as being immediately destructive of it, whilst the others are general causes, and would absolve a Christian from any union whatever; also because the divorce of even a repentant adulteress is conceded in perpetuity, so that although the wife repent of her adultery the husband is not bound to receive her again to his house, whereas in the other cases he is bound to receive her back again to favour; lastly, because Christ here wishes entirely to exclude all such causes of divorce as the wife’s deformity, poverty, disagreeableness, &c., which were common among the Jews. And to them He is here addressing Himself.

And whoso shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery. Cajetan and others here repeat the words, excepting for the cause of fornication, as though it were lawful for the man putting away the adulterous wife, and for the adulteress herself, to enter again into matrimony. But what S. Paul says (1Co 8:11), is plainly repugnant to this idea. For he there bids the innocent wife remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her adulterous husband. See what I have there said; and this is the constant usage and interpretation of the Church, of which more on chap. 19:9.

Ver. 33.-Again, ye have heard, &c. Thou shall perform, i.e., Thou shalt pay, shalt fulfil what thou hast sworn unto the Lord, or by the Lord that thou wilt do. So S. Chrysostom properly explains that by oaths are here meant vows confirmed by an oath, that we are bound to render them, that is, perform them unto God. Suarez explains differently. “If thou desirest to swear, swear by the true God, not by idols.”

Ver. 34.-But I say unto you, &c. Christ here explains and perfects the third precept of the Decalogue, which the Scribes and Pharisees had explained falsely. For, 1. they asserted that an oath became an oath, and was binding, if it were made by God, and called Him to witness, but not so if it were sworn by creatures. Christ here teaches the contrary. For in creatures the Creator is understood, for they were made by God, and all that they have and are is from God. For he who swears, calls God, who is the prime Verity, to witness his oath. He therefore who swears by a creature, either makes that creature a God, which is the sin of idolatry, or else it behoves to understand God the Creator in the oath.

2. The Scribes erred, who thought that by this precept perjury only was forbidden. On the contrary Christ here teaches that by it every oath is forbidden, all irreverence and abuse of the name of God.

But I say unto you, &c. From this passage, the Pelagians, as S. Augustine testifies (Epist. 89, q. 5.) taught that no oath was lawful for Christians. The Waldenses thought the same, as we see from the Council of Constance, and the Anabaptists of the present day hold the same opinion, who will not swear in a trial at the bidding of the judge.

But this is an error of faith, which the perpetual practice of the Church, as well as the example of God Himself, of S. Paul, and the Saints condemns, as is plain from Psa 110:4; Rom 1:9; Phi 1:8; 1Co 15:31, &c. Reason itself shows us the same thing; for an oath is an honour to God as the prime Verity, because he who swears appeals to Infallible Truth as his witness. Wherefore an oath is an act of religion, and the highest worship, so that it be done in truth and justice, as Jeremiah says, 4:2.

You will ask, Why, then, does Christ say, Swear not at all? S. Bernard answers (Serm. 65 in Cant.) that this is not of precept, but only of counsel.

2. Others allow that this is a precept, but one which only forbids perjury.

3. Others think that the command, Swear not at all, applies only to swearing by creatures, not by God. To this opinion S. Jerome inclines.

But all these explanations are forced and incorrect, and are refuted by what follows; for Christ bids us swear not at all, (1) because, as S. Augustine says (de Verb. Apostoli), “False swearing is destructive, true swearing is perilous, swearing not at all is safe.” Not at all-i.e., “As far as lieth in thee, that thou shouldst not affect nor love swearing, nor take any pleasure in an oath, as though it were a good thing.” Again, to swear is, per se, a moral evil of irreverence with respect to God; just as it is a moral evil, per se, to kill any one; yet there are cases in which it is a duty. So it is with an oath. In Paradise it was not lawful to swear, nor will it be lawful in heaven. So great is the majesty of the Name of God that It must not be called to witness unless necessity compel. For to invoke It about small and worthless things is to make It small and vile, just as would be the action of one who should call the king as witness about a single guinea. Hence the saints were cautious about swearing. In the Life of S. Chrysostom it is recorded as a notable thing that he never swore. The same is testified of S. John the Almoner.

You will ask whether also for Christians it is lawful to swear? For (1) many of the Fathers seem to say that it is not. SS. Jerome, Chrysostom, Euthymius, say that swearing was permitted by God to the Jews, lest they should swear by idols, but is not permitted to Christians. (2) Theophylact and Euthymius are of opinion that an oath was a legal precept of the old law, like circumcision. Wherefore, as the latter has been done away by Christ, so has the former. (3) Others think that an oath was allowed by God to the Jews, as being uninstructed, imperfect, and hard of belief, but has been forbidden to Christians because more perfect things become them as being more perfect, and because they ought to beware of the slightest peril of perjury. That in the same way divorce was permitted to the Jews, lest they should kill the wives whom they hated; and yet Christ takes away this permission from Christians. Thus think S. Hilary (in loc., Can. 4), S. Ambrose (in Ps. 119, Serm. 1), S. Basil (in Ps. 13), Chromatius and Origen (in loc., Tract. 35), Epiphanius (Hres. 19), S. Athanasius (Serm. de Passione et Cruce Domini), S. Chrysostom (Hom. ad pop.).

If you object that in Holy Scripture God took an oath, as in Gen 22:16, SS. Athanasius, Basil, and Ambrose answer that such oaths of God were not strictly speaking oaths, but. asseverations only-or promises; or, as S. Ambrose says, God may swear because He is able to fulfil that which He swears, and He cannot repent of it. But a man ought not to swear because he has not any certain power of doing that to which he pledges his oath.

If, further, you object that surely S. Paul swore when he said (2Co 1:23), “I call God to witness upon my soul” (Vulg.), S. Basil answers that this is not really an oath, but only a simple mode of speech, uttered with the appearance and form of an oath as a stronger affirmation.

But I say that not to the Jews only, but to Christians, is it lawful to swear. This is of faith, as is plain from the perpetual sense, use, and practice of the Church. “For of all strife among men”-even Christians-“an oath for confirmation is the end,” says the Apostle to the Heb 6:16. Moreover, in Scripture there is no affirmative precept for swearing, as there is for praying, sacrificing, loving and praising God, honouring parents, &c., because an oath is not, per se, desirable, but only for the sake of something else, and, as it were, per accidens, in such sort that it is a kind of medicine for unbelief. And there is a negative precept for swearing, namely that you shall not commit perjury or swear by false gods, but only by the true God. There is also a conditional precept that if you swear you shall only swear what is just, true, and necessary.

You may say, Christ here solemnly says to Christians, Swear not at all. I answer, this is true because, per se, it is unbecoming and improper to call the Great and Good God to witness about human disputes on account of men’s mutual distrusts, unless this impropriety may be excused by mutual necessity, as it is often excused by the want of witnesses and other judicial proofs.

To the Fathers who have been cited, I reply that they seem to have spoken in the same sense that Christ did, because they saw men often swearing falsely or unjustly, and, still more frequently, lightly, foolishly and rashly; hence on account of the peril of these things, they forbade an oath to Christians, that they should refrain from it as much as possible. But if any one is careful to avoid such dangers, then it is lawful for him to swear in a case of necessity. This is plain from S. Chrysostom, who, in his homilies to the people of Antioch, frequently and sharply rebuked their habit of rash swearing. And to those who wondered at his so doing, he thus replies. “I say and repeat, as I am accustomed, because ye say and repeat what ye are accustomed.” And he declares that he will not cease from this repetition until they leave off swearing. “For a hard knot a hard and constant wedge must be used.”

Neither by heaven, &c. It seems that the Jews were wont to swear by heaven and earth, and similar oaths. And because the Pharisees thought that these oaths, being made by creatures, were of small account, Christ here teaches the contrary-viz., that he who swears by heaven or earth, swears by God their Creator, who has placed the throne of His glory in heaven, and his footstool on earth.

Ver. 37.-But let your communication be, &c.-i.e., a simple affirmation, or negation. For what is more than these, Gr. . The Syriac has, what is added beyond these. In the Hebrew Gospel ascribed to S. Matthew, we have ain, ain, ken, ken-that is no, no, so, so. In this passage a simple affirmation or negation is opposed to an oath; so in S. James (v. 12) ; and it means that whatever is added to these in the way of swearing, is of evil. So S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome, or rather Paulinus, Epist. ad Celantium.

Of evil. Evil here may be taken either in the masculine or the neuter gender. If the masculine the devil is meant, who, as a ringleader of all iniquity, incites thee to swear without necessity, and so draws thee on by degrees to swear falsely, which is the sin of perjury. So Theophylact, Maldonatus, and others. If you take the neuter, it means cometh of vice, either your own or another’s-that is to say, the custom of swearing arises either from your own vice of levity or irreverence, or else from another man’s incredulity and distrust. Because a man does not believe my simple assertion, I confirm my words by an oath, which, however, is a fault become necessary since the fall of man. So S. Augustine.

Vers. 38 and 39.-You have heard, &c. This was the law of retaliation. But I say unto you, Resist not evil. That is, an evil or unjust thing, or an injury done to thee by a wicked man. That is, do not requite evil by evil, injury by injury. Or better, resist not evil, taking evil in the masculine-i.e., the evil man who injures you. The Greek , though both meanings amount to much the same thing.

Note-1. That the ancient lex talionis was just, but in practice it was often unjust, and sprang from a desire of revenge, by which one who had had an eye or tooth plucked out brought before the magistrate the person who had injured him, and demanded, by way of retaliation, that his eye or tooth should be plucked out. But Christ supplies the deficiency of this law and perfects it, by opposing to the lex talionis the law and counsel of patience, and to a disposition thirsting for revenge the law of meekness.

Note-2. That this law of Christ has not regard to magistrates, as Anabaptists say, that all war not only offensive, but even defensive, is forbidden to Christians by Christ, but has regard to private persons; for it is the office of the magistrate to scourge the guilty and to put murderers to death.

Note-3. This law of Christ does not take away from private individuals the lex talionis which is of the law of nations and of nature, both for the reparation of offended justice and for the correction of the guilty person who has offended; much less does it take away the right of defending ourselves when we are attacked by an enemy, but only forbids the desire of vengeance.

Note-4. That Christ here wishes to imprint upon us a disposition to meekness and patience, that however much thou mayest be injured, yet still that thou shouldst not depart so much as a hair’s breadth from inward peace and charity; and that if love of your neighbour and the glory of God, in any conjuncture of circumstances, should absolutely require that you resist not evil, but patiently accept it, that you should in such a case do as the first Christians did-suffer joyfully the spoiling of your goods, or even the deprivation of life itself. I say then, with regard to these three cases spoken of by Christ, If any one smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; If any one will take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also; Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain, that they are, speaking generally, matters of counsel, not of direct precept; but if the salvation of our neighbour and the glory of God require them to be done, then they are of precept. For instance, if the Indians or the Japanese knew that Christ has commanded Christians to turn the other cheek to him who smote them upon one cheek, and unless they did so those heathens would be scandalized and turned away from embracing the faith of Christ, then I say that it would be the bounden duty of any Christian, but especially of a preacher, to turn the other cheek to him who smote him upon one. There is a literal example of this in the life of S. Francis Xavier, the Apostle of India and Japan. When the Japanese were laughing at him as a foreigner, and at his new doctrine concerning Christ crucified, it happened that a certain Japanese, hearing John Fernandez, a companion of Xavier, preaching in the street, out of petulance spat in his face. Fernandez, in no way disturbed, quietly wiped away the spittle, and proceeded with his discourse. The Japanese were so filled with admiration at his patience and struck with the wisdom of the new preachers, that they gave themselves to them as disciples, and in great numbers embraced the faith of Christ.

Lastly, it is a distinguishing characteristic of a martyr not to resist, not to defend himself, but to suffer himself to be slain for Christ. For, “a soldier fights, not a martyr.” A martyr is a sharer in the Passion of Christ, as the martyrs write to S. Cyprian, (lib. 5, Epist. 12.) For the passion of Christ is the pattern of all martyrdom.

Wherefore that Theban Legion of very many and very brave soldiers, being condemned to death by the Emperor Maximian, because they would not sacrifice to idols, when soldiers were sent amongst them to slay them, would not defend themselves, even though they might have sold their lives dear and made an immense slaughter of their enemies. But at the instigation and exhortation of S. Mauritius, they piled their arms and suffered themselves to be immolated like a flock of lambs, for the sake of Christ. It was Christ who taught this new philosophy, a paradox to the world, unknown to the philosophers, unheard of among men, but heavenly and divine, and confirmed the same by His own example, when He willingly gave Himself up to the Jews to be bound, scourged, and crucified. Whence He says Himself, “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair.” (Isa 1:6.)

Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. This is, as I have said, a matter sometimes of precept, sometimes of counsel. Compliance with it flows from a generous mind, prompt to suffer, and earnestly desirous of imitating the Life and Passion of Christ. Hence S. Ambrose by the right cheek mystically understands patience, which conquers all things. “For as,” saith he, “Samson by the jaw-bone of an ass slew a thousand Philistines, so Christ by His patience overthrew the demons and all His enemies.”

Thus that glorious Spiridion, Bishop of Trimituns, in Cyprus, being invited by the Emperor Constantine to visit him on account of the fame of his sanctity, when he was entering the imperial palace in a mean and foreign garb, was derided by one of the servants and slapped on the cheek. On receiving it he immediately turned the other cheek, on which the servant was so struck with his virtue, that he became ashamed, and falling down on the ground at his feet begged him to forgive him. (See Spiridion’s Life in Surius, Decemb. 12.)

Similarly, a monk who was slapped on one cheek by an energumen, offered her the other; and by this drove out the devil. Hear the account (Auctor. Doctrin Pat. Tract. de humilitate n. 5) : “When the monk entered into the house, there came the girl who was vexed by the devil, and gave the monk a slap in the face, but he, according to the Divine precept, offered her his other cheek to slap. The devil, being constrained, began to cry out, ‘0! The power of the precepts of Jesus Christ drives me hence.’ And immediately the girl was cleansed. When the monk came to some old men, he told them what had been done, and they glorified God, saying, ‘It is the habit of diabolical pride to fall before the lowliness of the commands of Jesus.'”

Cassian celebrates the patience of a certain religious man, who in order to try his virtue, received a very sharp slap on his cheek from his Abbot Paul in a large assemblage, and so severe was the blow that it was heard by a number of persons who were sitting a considerable distance off. Yet not only did not the monk murmur, but his face was not even suffused with a blush, as is usual.

Lastly, S. Eulogius, presbyter and martyr of Cordova, being sentenced to death by a Saracen prince because he had spoken evil of Mahomet, whilst he was being led to martyrdom, was struck by a Saracen on his cheek. He offered him the other, when he received another slap upon that. Soon afterwards he was beheaded, when a dove came and sat upon his body, a sign and a vindication of his dove-like meekness, innocence, and patience. This happened A.D. 859, On the 11th day of March.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, &c. The cloak is an outer garment, and often of considerable value; the coat in this passage is an inner garment, whence the saying, “Your coat is nearer than your cloak.” Wherefore the coat cannot be plucked away until the cloak has been taken off. So S. Luke rightly inverts the order of the two, and says, And him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take away thy coat also. But the meaning is the same in both. If any one shall take one garment away from thee, do not go to law with him to recover it, but rather let him take possession of another, if he will. S. Francis did this literally. On account of his profuse almsdeeds he was taken by his father before the Bishop of Assisi, that he might be made to give up his property. Not only did he yield up his other goods, but he resigned even his clothes to his father, saying, “Now shall I say more boldly, ‘Our Father, which art in heaven.'” S. Elizabeth, daughter of the King of Hungary, afforded in this matter a rare example of patience and poverty. After the death of her husband, the Landgrave of Hesse, she was expelled with the utmost indignity by his vassals and relations from her home, she was despoiled of all she had, and reduced to the most extreme poverty. With joy and alacrity she went to a Franciscan convent; and there she asked the brethren to sing Te Deum laudamus in thanksgiving to God. Afterwards she wandered from house to house, like a beggar, with her children, and at last entered a hut, where she was tormented with the smoke, heat, wind, and rain, yet always did she give God thanks. The insults, reproaches, and scoffs of her relations she joyfully endured, being glad that she was counted worthy to suffer such things for God. At length, her father, King Andrew, begged her to go back to Hungary to share in the royal splendour. She would not, but in great poverty, gaining her own living by spinning wool, she spent the rest of her life, performing the most menial offices for poor, ulcerated, and leprous people. And so, a little before her death, she heard the singing of the angels, and the sweet voice of Christ calling her to His heavenly kingdom-“Come, My chosen one, and enjoy the bed in heaven which I have destined for thee from all eternity.” (See her Life in Surius, Nov. ig.)

And whoso shall compel thee to go a mile, Gr. , Angiare is a Persian word. The Persian royal messengers and postmen were called angari. They had the right of seizing horses, men or ships, and enforcing their service, so that angiare has the same meaning as to impound, compel. Hence the words Angarice and Panangarice in law books. In Hebrew iggheret means a letter, that which is carried by angari or runners.

The meaning is-If any one shall force thee to go one mile with him, go to the second mile-post rather than contend; so will you keep peace, exercise patience, and conquer by your charity him who compels you, and make him your friend.

And let not believers think that this is too difficult for them to do. S. Basil (in his Homiy on reading heathen books) shows that philosophers taught and did as much. For instance, Pericles, who, upon a certain occasion, had suffered abuse from a person during a whole day, took him home in the evening with a light. Of Julius Csar, Cicero says that he forgot nothing except injuries. But those things were but shadows of Christian virtues, which existed in a far greater and more solid degree in S. Paul, S. Laurence, S. Vincent, who gave thanks to their tormentors for weaving for them their martyrs’ crowns. S. Cyprian ordered twenty pieces of gold to be given to the executioner who was to behead him. Brother Juniper, the companion of S. Francis, received taunts as Christ’s jewels. Once to him who reproached him, he cried, “Cast your jewels into my lap; would that I might be stoned with precious stones like these all the way to Rome!” In the Lives of the Fathers we read of a certain religious man, who the more any one vexed him, or laughed at him, the more he rejoiced, saying, “These are the men who afford us an opportunity of becoming perfect; but they who commend us disturb our minds, for it is written, ‘They who speak well of you are those who deceive you. ‘”

Climacus (Gradu 4 de Obedienti) says that a certain religious, named Abbakirus, suffered divers trials and tribulations at the hands of his brethren for fifteen years. He was even driven from table by the servants. But he bore all patiently, and took none of the indignities offered to him seriously, but as proving him. And when he lay a-dying he said, “I give thanks to Jesus Christ the Lord, and to you, that ye have tried me unto salvation, for, lo! for these seventeen years I have remained untempted of the devil.” The same Climacus relates that an old man, named Macedonius, who by his own desire had been sent among the novices, said, “Never have I felt freedom from all strife and the sweetness of divine light within my soul as I do now.”

Give to him that asketh, &c. At first sight the precept might not seem to be in harmony with what has gone before concerning the lex talionis, but it is indeed in perfect harmony. The meaning is this-I, Christ, instead of the law of retaliation, appoint a law of love and kindness. Wherefore, whosoever asketh anything of thee, be he friend or be he enemy who has injured thee, or smitten thee on the cheek, or taken away thy cloak, give him what he asks; and if he should desire to borrow from thee, turn not thy face away from him, as people are wont to do, but treat him kindly as a neighbour, and lend him that he requires, as though he had never injured thee.

In fine, the sermon and sanction of Christ here does not decrease but increases, for although it may be easier per se to give to every one that asketh thee, than when thou art smitten upon one cheek to offer the other to the smiter, yet it is more difficult in the connection, which implies both the patience which suffers such things and such men, and the beneficence by which we give or lend to those who ask us. For it is more difficult to do a kindness to one who has injured us, than simply to bear an injury patiently. So S. Augustine, lib. de Serm. Dom., c. 40.

The liberality of S. John, Patriarch of Alexandria, is well known. Encouraged by these words of Christ, he gave large alms to all who asked him, whence he derived his name of the Almoner. And the more he gave the more he received, so that it seemed as though there were a strife between God and him who should be the more liberal. For John overcame God, but much more did God overcome John. John would not examine those who asked him, whether they were rich or poor, worthy or unworthy, few or many. “I am persuaded,” he said, “that if the whole world should come to Alexandria, needing alms, they would be very far from exhausting the treasury of God.” S. Francis, upon one occasion, shortly after his conversion, refused, contrary to his custom, to give an alms to a poor man. But he very soon afterwards repented of his refusal, and gave the man a large alms; and he made a vow that in future he would never refuse to give when he was asked. By this his liberality, he drew down upon him that abundant grace of God by which he attained to such eminent sanctity.

That is a rare thing which we read in the Chronicles of the Franciscans concerning Alexander Aleusis, who was called a fountain of life, and who was the teacher of S. Bonaventura. His affection for the Mother of God was so great that he would never deny anything to any one who. asked him in her name. A certain Franciscan got to know of this, and, seeing that he was by far the most celebrated Doctor of the University of Paris, came to him and said, “By S. Mary, I beg of you to become one of us.” He believed the man was sent by God, and immediately followed him, and became a Franciscan Brother.

Ver. 41.-Ye have heard, &c. It has been asked, where is it said, “Thou shalt hate thine enemy?” Maldonatus replies, in Deu 25:19, “Thou shalt blot out his name from under heaven.” God had commanded Joshua and the Hebrews utterly to destroy the impious Canaanites, and to seize their land. But the Law bade only the Canaanites to be slain, not other nations, and even them, not out of hatred: just as a judge might order a guilty person to be put to death, not because he hated him, but even one whom he loved.

I Maintain, therefore, that this saying was not in the Law, but was said by the Scribes who interpreted the Law. For they, because they found in Lev 29:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” or “thy friend,” as the Vulgate translates, inferred from thence that they should hate their enemies. Wherefore Christ here corrects this interpretation of theirs, and explains the Law, that by neighbour or friend every man is meant, even a foreigner, a Gentile, and an enemy. For all men are neighbours, through their first forefather, Adam, and brethren one of another. We are also brethren through our second Father, Christ, through whom we have been born again, and, as it were, created anew in the likeness of God, and called to the common inheritance of God, our Father in heaven. So S. Jerome, Augustine, Theophylact, and others.

But I say unto you, &c. Christ here bids us love our enemies in heart, in word, and in deed. In heart, when He says, “Love your enemies;” in word, “Bless them that curse you;” in deed, by adding, “Do good to them that hate you.”

That ye may be the children of your Father, &c. Christ bids that in loving our enemies we should imitate God, who does good to his impious enemies, giving them rain and sunshine, corn and fruits. For the mind of God is so lofty, that He regards no injury nor blasphemy of any one, however impious, as done against Himself. He perceives no diminution of His honour and glory. He is so impassible and so holy that no anger or revenge can affect Him, and so good and element that He showers His gifts upon His enemies, preventing them with His grace, and alluring and drawing them to reconciliation. Yea, He gave up His only Son to be crucified, that He might reconcile them and save them. Let us imitate these things as far as we can.

For if ye love them, &c. The publicans were so called because they farmed and collected the public taxes. And they extorted from the poor with the utmost rigour more than they had a right to pay. For this reason they were accounted by the Jews iniquitous and infamous.

What reward have ye? None: for if ye love your friends only, not your enemies, ye only do as the publicans do, and God will give you no reward in heaven. For such love is of nature, not of grace and charity, which latter love extends itself even to enemies. And ye do receive a reward from your friends, namely, reciprocal love. But if ye love your enemies as well as your friends, ye will deserve and obtain great grace and glory from God, since both kinds of love are the fruit of charity. Charity therefore bids us love both friends and enemies, corrupt nature our friends only.

Publius Sulla was wont to boast that he surpassed his friends in benefits, his enemies in injuries. Other heathen did the same. There were indeed a few among them who did love even their enemies. Such was Phocion, who being condemed to death, and at point of execution, being asked what message he would send to his son, made answer, “I wish him to forget this injury which the Athenians have done to me.”

Lycurgus, King of the Lacedmonians, being deprived of an eye by a certain young man, the youth was presented to him by the people that he should punish him in any way he pleased. Lycurgus took the youth, and gave him excellent instruction; and when he had quite reformed his character, he brought him into the theatre, and presented him to the people, saying, “Lo! him whom I received from you violent and injurious I restore to you profitable and acceptable.” See Plutarch in Life of Lycurgus. If the Gentiles, led by nature and reason, did such things as these, for the sake of temporal glory, what ought not Christians to do, led by faith and grace for the reward of a blissful eternity?

And if ye salute your brethren only, &c. Brethren, i.e., relations, kinsfolk, friends. Salute. Gr. , salute with a kiss and embrace, which was the customary method of salutation among the Greeks and Romans, and indeed amongst the first Christians, according to those words of S. Paul, “Salute one another with an holy kiss.” (2Co 13:12.)

Be ye therefore perfect, &c. The emphasis here is upon the word ye. Because ye are separated from the heathen, and chosen of God that ye should be His faithful ones, His friends, His sons and heirs, therefore imitate the holiness and perfection of your Heavenly Father.

The word therefore refers partly to what immediately precedes concerning love of our enemies. “Do ye therefore, 0 faithful, who are the friends of God, and who ought therefore to be better than the heathen, do you love all men, enemies as well as friends, even as your Father wholly extends His love to all.” But the therefore also partly refers to all that has gone before. For this maxim is the end and completion of all the sayings of this chapter, as though Christ said, “Thus far I have unfolded the commandments of God, which are the sanction of the perfection of all virtue. Be ye therefore perfect in meekness, in purity of heart, in patience, in chastity, in charity, and in every virtue which the Law of God enjoins.”

You will ask whether this perfection be of counsel or of precept? I reply, partly of counsel, partly of precept. First, it is of precept that every believer in Christianity should endeavour to be perfect, in such wise that he should perfectly love his enemies as well as his friends, and keep perfectly all the other commandments of God. For Christ is here speaking to all the faithful, as is plain from what precedes. Hence we learn from this passage that all Christians are under obligation to be advancing towards perfection according to their state and condition. For this is required that they should be the children of their Heavenly Father, as Christ says. Whosoever therefore desires to be the child and heir of this Father ought to imitate Him in perfection because, as S. Cyprian says (Serm. de bono Patient.), “The children of such and so great a Parent ought not to be degenerate.”

Moreover, S. James (chap. i.), addressing not religious, but all believers, says: “That ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” For if soldiers in battle wish to be most brave, disciples in a school most learned, workmen, each in their own craft, most exact, servants in obeying their own masters most diligent, why should not Christians, who are called by Christ to holiness and perfection, wish to be most holy and most perfect?

Blessed Theresa was wont to say that God has an especial love for those who are perfect, and makes them, as it were, captains and generals of others, that they should convert, save, and perfect many. Wherefore she herself made a vow that in every work she would do that which should be more perfect, and for the greater glory of God. See S. Chrysostom (lib. 3. de Vitupererat. vit Monast.), where he teaches that the precepts of Christ bind seculars as well as religious, and that therefore both ought to aim at perfection, each in his own state and rank, according to that which God said to Israel, “Thou shalt be perfect and without spot before the Lord thy God.” (Deu 18:13.)

2. This perfection is of counsel so far as it extends itself to the observance, not only of commands, but of evangelical counsels, such as voluntary poverty, chastity, and religious obedience; such, I mean, as when Christ said, “If thou wilt be perfect, sell that thou hast and give to the poor.” (Mat 19:21.)

Moreover, this perfection mainly consists in charity and love, especially of our enemies. For this is the perfection of life, since the perfection of the country consists in the vision and fruition of God. Christ here tacitly intimates that the way of attaining perfection and eminent sanctity is for any one to exercise himself in love of his enemies, both because this is the highest and most difficult act of charity, as because it is the greatest victory over ourselves. For he who does this generously vanquishes anger, revenge, and the other passions of the soul; and God, requites his charity with far more abundant gifts of grace. So that holy virgin mentioned by D. Tauler, when asked how she had attained to so great sanctity, replied, “I have ever loved with a special love any who have been troublesome to me; and to any one who has injured me, I have always endeavoured to show some special mark of kindness.”

As your Father which is in heaven, &c., For He with a perfect love loves all men. Upon all He sheds the beams of His beneficence, as it were a perennial sun of kindness, Who expects not to derive any advantage from any one, but out of pure love desires to communicate His benefits to others, that thus He may contend with the wickedness and ingratitude of man; for few indeed are they who love Him, their Benefactor, in return as they should do. The word as signifies likeness, not equality; for we cannot come up to the perfection of God, for that infinitely transcends all our perfection; but we ought to imitate it as far as we are able.

The perfection then which Christ here requires of a Christian is not merely human but Divine perfection, and similar to God’s perfection. For he is our Father not only by nature, but by grace, for by it “we are partakers of the Divine nature,” as S. Peter says. Therefore we are made to be really sons of God, and as it were gods upon earth. And so S. Peter proposes the words in Lev 11:44 as a kind of mirror for Christians saying, “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1Pe 1:16.) And S. Paul says, “Be ye imitators of God as dear children.” (Eph 5:1.) Beautifully says S. Cyprian, “If it be a pleasure and glory to men to have children like themselves, how much more is there gladness with God our Father, when any one is so born spiritually, that the Divine nobility is manifest in his actions?”

1. The perfection of God consists in the most ample love of all men, bad as well as good. And it is to this Christ has special reference in this passage.

2. It consists in the highest forbearance, kindness, and tranquillity, and the impossibility of being affected by injury, wrath, or revenge, so that He is imperturbable and without passions. So in like manner must we, if we would be perfect, be meek and tranquil, and to that end must mortify anger and all other mental passions. Whence S. Ambrose says (lib. de Jacob et vita beata), “It is the part of a perfect man to sustain like a brave soldier the onset of the most terrible misfortunes, and like a wise pilot to manage his ship in a storm, and as he runs through the surging billows, to avoid shipwreck rather by facing the waves than by shrinking from them.”

Hence we shall find it a singularly efficacious means of attaining perfection for every one to search carefully into the state of his own soul, and find out his chief vice, from which, like branches from a root, all his other faults spring, and to strive against this with all his might until he root it out. For example, the radical and dominating vice in Peter is pride, in Paul gluttony, in James luxury, in John acerbity, in Philip anger, in Andrew sadness, in Matthew pusillanimity. Let every man know his own vice, and when it is known, let him fight against it with suitable weapons and mortify it.

3. God looks down from on high upon all earthly things as mean and poor, and gloriously presides over heaven and heavenly things. So in like manner, ought the man who is aiming at perfection to despise earthly honours and pleasures as worthless matters, pertaining to flies and gnats and fleas, and ought to look up to and covet the heavenly things, which are God’s.

4. The mind and will of God are most just, holy, and perfect. With this mind, then, ought we to be clothed, that we may be like God-yea, one with God. Hear what S. Bernard says about this: “The unity of a man’s spirit with God is his having his heart lifted up towards God, and entirely directed to Him; when he only wills what God wills; when there is not only affection, but perfect affection for God, so that he cannot will anything save and except what God wills. For to will what God wills is to be already like God. But not to be able to will except what God wills, this is to be what God is, to whom to will and to be are the same thing.

5. God is of a great and lofty mind, which transcends all things, and which ever abides and is established in His own blessed and tranquil eternity, and so converts and draws all things to Himself. Hear, again, S. Bernard (ad Fratres de Monte Dei): “Thou shalt, amid the adverse and prosperous changes and chances of the world, hold fast as it were an image of eternity; I mean an inviolable and unshaken constancy of mind, blessing God at all times, and vindicating for thyself, even in the uncertain events of this changeful world, and in its certain troubles, to some extent at least, a condition of abiding unchangeableness, so shalt thou begin to be changed and formed anew into the image and likeness of the eternal God, with whom is no changeableness, neither shadow of turning; for as He is, so also shalt thou be in this world, neither fearful in adversity nor dissolute in prosperity.”

Lastly, all perfection in this life is begun only, and is imperfect. For concupiscence, like a Jebusite, dwelleth in our members, and can be kept under, but not entirely extirpated; but in heaven, perfection shall be full and complete, where this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on a blessed immortality, where death and concupiscence shall be swallowed up of glory, and God shall be all in all. There shall be no covetousness, where love shall fill all things. Whence the Apostle says of himself (Philip 3:12):-“Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

5:23 {6} Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the {o} altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

(6) The covetous Pharisees taught that God was appeased by the sacrifices appointed in the law, which they themselves devoured. But Christ on the contrary side denies that God accepts any man’s offering, unless he makes satisfaction to his brother whom he has offended: and says moreover, that these stubborn and stiff-necked despisers of their brethren will never escape the wrath and curse of God before they have made full satisfaction to their brethren.

(o) He applies all this speech to the state of his time, when there was then an altar standing in Jerusalem, and therefore they are very foolish that gather from this that we must build altars and use sacrifices: but they are bigger fools who consider this to be purgatory, which is spoken of as peace making and atonement one with another.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus gave two illustrations of anger, one involving temple worship (Mat 5:23-24) and the other legal action (Mat 5:25-26). Both deal with situations in which the hearer is the cause of another person’s anger rather than the offended party. Why did Jesus construct the illustrations this way? Perhaps He did so because we are more likely to remember situations in which we have had some grievance against another person than those in which we have simply offended another. Moreover Jesus’ disciples should be as sensitive to making other people hate them as they are about hating others.

The offerer would present his offering at the brazen altar in the temple courtyard. It is more important to lift the load of hate from another brother’s heart than to engage in a formal act of worship. Ritual worship was very important to the scribes and Pharisees, and to all the Jews, but Jesus put internal purity first, even the internal purity of another person (cf. 1Sa 16:7). Reconciliation is more important than worship also in that it must come first.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles